Was Santorum Really Bashing Female Soldiers’ Emotions? He Clarifies
- Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:48pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
It isn‘t only Rick Santorum’s stunning primary wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri and a rousing CPAC speech that have caught headlines this week. The former Pennsylvania senator also raised some eyebrows on Thursday when he said that he has “concerns about women in front-line combat.” His comments, which were taken to be sexist by some, were later clarified — but the controversy surrounding them is still swirling.
“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way and they’re a great addition — and they have been for a long time — to the armed services of our country,” Santorum said in an interview with CNN’s John King on Thursday.
But what came next is what stunned critics.
“But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,” he said. “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”
Watch these comments, below:
Critics saw these statements as saying that women are too emotional to engage in front-line combat. But on Friday, Santorum attempted to clarify his statements, saying that they were more focused upon men and their emotions than they were women.
“When you have men and women together in combat, I think there’s — men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,” he told NBC’s Ann Curry on “Today.“ ”I think it‘s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern.”
Santorum went on to decry the notion that he was saying women are too emotional.
“I’ve never raised that as a concern,” he proclaimed. “No, the issue is — and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time — is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”
Watch him make these clarifications, below:
In an interview with ABC News, he also claimed that he wasn’t slamming women.
“I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women,” he said. “I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them.”
Here’s the ABC interview:
Santorum also mentioned women’s physical strength in his original arguments on Thursday against their serving in increased roles on the front lines. His arguments, though, focused mainly on the lack of transportation assistance women could give, due to less strength, to injured men — something that didn‘t ignite critics’ interest as much as his “emotion” comments did.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (133)
Kinnison
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:05pmThe fact is that both the Russians (WWII) and the Israelis (1948-49) tried women in mixed combat units and the experiment failed. It did not fail because of the “emotions” of women. The women generally did well. It failed for the non-politically-correct reason that men are hardwired in their DNA to protect women. Casualty rates for men in mixed units went through the roof, and it was decided that it was better that women and men not serve in integrated units in direct combat. It was also found that women simply did not have the upper body strength to serve in infantry, artillery or armor units—they can’t handle the required heavy lifting tasks. Women also showed a much higher incidence of infection in the incredibly dirty environments that routinely exist in combat. Most of Iraq and Afghanistan are deserts. Some Marine infantry units in Afghanistan have served for 3 or 4 months in the field in almost constant combat without access to showers or adequate water with which to wash. Women’s internal plumbing is simply not up to that kind of lack of sanitation; they get sick. I know of no family that mourns the death of a son more than that of a daughter. I have no problem with women fighting and being wounded or dying for their country should they volunteer to serve. I do think, however, that common sense should prevail in the interest of combat efficiency.
Report Post »Homeschoolmama
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:42pmI totally agree, Kinnison, and add that in Pow situation women would suffer much more than they could imagine and much more than the male soldiers could bare to witness. Their torture would lead to intelligence information being given by the men to stop the torture of the women. There is also the problem of fraternization and how it could affect the mission. Seeing a brother-in-arms wounded or killed is bad enough, imagine the problems resulting from seeing a girlfriend or wife killed in action or the disaster to the mission if one of the male soldiers were trying to prevent such an incident from happening to a loved one.
Report Post »AxelPhantom
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:54amAgreed and well said.
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 3:19amThere are many jobs in the military. Each soldier, seaman or marine is tested for aptitude and performance. There are at least 9 soldiers supporting each soldier in front line combat. The soldiers supporting a high-tech army are at least as important as the soldier carrying a rifle in direct contact with the enemy.
As a man, my emotional issue is placing a mother of small children directly in harm’s way. I would have suffered great emotional and psychological stress if my mom would have been sent to Korea.
I saw a woman reservist with a missing arm and facial injuries. I felt a great sadness.
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 9:33amI think maybe a better answer would be, ” I should just shut my mouth on the subject because I never served in the service, actually, I never even worked a pressing or trying job where I had to actually do work, so I will just shut up.” Oh yeah, but did I tell you , I am the GRANDson of a Coal miner so for some far off reasons that make me able to understand all you conservatives who probably don’t work in coal mines.
Report Post »Seriously, maybe Grete Van will get him off the hook on this one, he is on her her show EVERY day. I am surprised Laura wouldn’t let up on him, but she is right, Santorum has a bad knack for telling people what they can and can’t do. Maybe it is my Catholic roots that cause me to be so bothered by a man who want to not only be the moral police but also “know it all” on on issues not relevant to him. I would love to see the study supporting that women can’t because men are apt to trying to save them. I never heard a more sexist statement. I don’t think they should serve but I have other reasons such as cohesion and all the BS concerned with what happens when two people of opposite sexes are serving in these conditions.
I am sure my other problem with Santorum saying this is because i remember all to well his election loss here in Pennsylvania. The guy just has a problem with having to say offensive statements acting a like the moral police. People really don’t like being judged or having others judge them. Ultimately, my Senator became a dis
CottonMPG
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 1:09pmI didn’t think he was saying it was the,”women’s”, emotions. I thought he was referring to higher emotions in the unit as a whole due to the presence of women. I don’t think it is good for us to have women in combat period, and I am a woman. Combat is a strain on the emotions anyway without any additional stress. It isn‘t because I think women can’t do a good job but there are lots of variables and I think the extra issues would outweigh any perceived benefit.
Report Post »Bobgood1
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:03pmTHE CRITICS (LEFT WINGERS) tried to “spin” this speech into a statement that he didn’t even say. It is really sickening how every conservative speech is twisted into something that was never said.
Report Post »edmundburk
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:30pmIt does‘nt help that Lora Igram is on the O’riely factor trying to debunk Santroium’s views.
Report Post »thetreyman
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 10:35pmwho are “Lora Igram” and “Santroium?”
Report Post »flatbroke
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:35pmBeing a female i would have to agree with Rick Santorum. There are women who could do very well in combat, but very few, maybe a handfull, and there are men that should not fight in combat, its not a sex issue, its a size, strength, issue. guns and weapons are equalizers, but hand to hand, there are just too many ways the average female has to compensate for less upper body strength, size. also the rape thing, everytime you hear of a female soldier getting captured, she is always raped everytime, its disgusting, just like war.
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:57pmThank you for your true comments, without political bias, or any of the other non-realities issues. What you have brought out in your posts are the harsh realities of front line combat. I also agree with you that there are a few who could handle a large portion of hand to hand, however, hand to hand is not a Hollywood film where you can shout cut, it is your life as well as the lives of your unit. Thank you again
Stand Strong America
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:41pmI agree also. I am different from a man, physically and emotionally and genetically and hormonally by Grand Design. I am not equal to a man and no man is equal to a woman – we equally important yet created for different and unique pruposes – different halves who together create a perfect whole. “feminism” is just another “cause” created by the left to remove God’s design and purpose from our society . Other things in nature have no such struggle with gender roles or the species would not survive. Our so called “enilightenment” (as defined by the left) will be our demise if we don’t stand and say enough.
Report Post »dumbgrunt33
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:14amBeing an Infantryman for a long portion of my life, I am not going to lie and say I do not have a skewed view of this discussion. My wife generally says exactly what you both say, and I of course am a horrible husband and like to poke her about this topic (which has led to several cold nights, so young men please don’t do this). What I have never told her from my point of view is that there is a time and a place for everything. I would describe an Army as being proactive, rather than reactive. In other words men should try and fight the battle AWAY from home and women should stay to defend the home. A woman, defending her children, is ALWAYS the most fierce, ferocious being on this earth. If all the women leave to fight elsewhere, as well as men; who will be there for the children? I know this may sound sexist, but that is not my intention, remember I was a grunt for almost half my life, so things don’t always come out the way they should. I also tried to get my wife to read this and make sure it wasn’t too bad….but she didn’t want to, so God help me.
Report Post »Lindsay4410
Posted on February 13, 2012 at 12:56pmFlatbroke and Kaydeebeau, forgive me, but your comments disgust me. You are not different from a man.Amazingly enough, you possess the same bone structure, the same muscle structure (not talking about genitals, obviously), and the same mental capacity. How dare you claim that women are less than men? It is women like you that have made the struggle for equality so difficult, because you bash your own team. I am capable of being physically stronger than a man. I am capable of being more emotionally detached than a man. I am capable of shooting a gun better than a man. It is all about training. Am I all of those things? No. Could I be, with training? Yes. And that is the point I’m making. Women have been fighting for equality for years, don’t cut our legs out from under us. Try supporting women, instead.
Report Post »thefix
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 10:07amLindsay, on the issue of physical strength/endurance of the soldier (probably one of the most important aspects of a prepared grunt) your reply shows a complete lack of understanding of human physiology or you are intentionally ignoring logic. If you compare a trained (skill and physically) female soldier vs your general citizen male (out of shape, overweight, etc) than your right. But if you compare apples and apples a trained female vs trained male, there’s no way a female soldier is even close to the physical level of the male soldier. Is a female soldier able to outrun me? Sure I’m terribly out of shape now. Can they out lift me, maybe. Could they outlast me in physical activity, easily (again, I’m terribly out of shape). Could a female soldier fresh out basic training (arguably the best shape one can be in) outperform me physically when I was fresh out of basic? No, it didn’t happen, I have first hand experience with that. The best in shape females in my AIT class (came out of basic the week before just like me) couldn’t even come close physically to the worst of us males (again came out of basic at the same time). Just the way we’re physically made, no shame in it. To ignore that and try to act differently is to deny the reality. The real world will ignore your desires.
Report Post »JJohnGalt2
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:34pmCPAC should have been a triumphal moment for Rick Santorum. His sweep of election contests this week put a gale-force wind in his campaign’s sails. At this week’s “Wednesday Meeting” of center-right organizations and activists, hosted by Grover Norquist, there was palpable excitement about the results and Santorum’s prospects. CPAC attendees are a natural base for Santorum, who overall the other nominees has the more consistent, traditional conservative record. Talking to attendees, it was clear they wanted to believe in Santorum. Their hearts were with him, even if their minds were nagged by questions of his electability. Today’s speech was a tailor-made opportunity to put these fears to rest. He whiffed.
Report Post »To be sure, Santorum’s CPAC speech was better than his normal stump speech, which tends to get bogged down in legislative and policy minutia. He attempted to provide an over-arching vision or narrative for his candidacy. But, his performance was rather lackluster. He received a warm reception from the crowd, but not the stirring response he was primed to receive.
His biggest missed opportunity, though, was dispelling doubts about his electability. His speech contained just a tinge too much of the kind of whining that plagues underdog campaigns. Complaining about “pundits” or the “establishment” or bemoaning one’s lack of financial resources only reinforces the belief that one’s campaign is a long-shot. Coming off three solid victories in a week,
smartass
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:07pmHe plays well at CPAC, but not in Averagetown USA.
Report Post »Winedude
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:27pmAgree Smartass. I don’t know how person could expect to win the Presidency when the last time he was involved in a general election he lost by better than 15 percentage points. By just about any definition, that’s a rout if not a landslide.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:43pmalmost clever choosing a likablely conservative sounding screen name yet spewing the elitist rino / leftist progressive talking points…
Report Post »dumbgrunt33
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:49am….My only hope is that Santorum wins not only the primaries; but then wins the presidency, JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 8:39amWell that was a lot of wordy poop. Electability? Versus Obama? A moldy stump versus Obama should be a given… Anyone speaking english and that agrees to lessen the size of govt and the crack head approach to economics should be a no brainer. Save the wordy poop for puff post.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:27pmBfd
Report Post »thinkingmom
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:02pmThis has nothing to do with women in combat. This is the beginning of the “Rick Santorum hates women” narrative by the left. He is pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith, and pro-freedom. Everything the left & leftist media despises. This is just the beginning to marginalize him and an attempt at gender warfare. They did the same thing in the CO Senate race in 2010. Study the left’s playbook, because it is not at all original.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:11pmWhen will you understand that this guy has made so many outrageous remarks(besides this) that he will not get wide-spread appeal in a general election?
If you want the GOP to lose the general election, vote for Rick Santorum in the primaries. Simple as that.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:38pm…
Report Post »THINKINGMOM…
I agree. The leftist liberals needed some “dirt” on Santorum, and this is all they could come up with for now.
Since Santorum beat Romney in those last three states, the liberals are afraid Santorum may win the Republican nomination. The liberals want Romney to run against Obama in November.
fence-post
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:39pmWould you care to share these “outrageous comments”? Didn‘t’ think so. Let me guess, you heard someone say that he has said outrageous things, but haven’t actually heard him say anything outrageous. Grow up and think for yourself.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:14pm@Fence
“Now, unlike Islam where the higher law and civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law.”
“”In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality”
“One of the things that I will talk about, that no President has talked about before is that I think the dangers of contraception in this country…….well many in the Christian faith have said, that’s okay, contraception is okay, it’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
There are many more like this.
You think he’s going to be able to get many non radical Christian votes in the general election, with Obama campaigning against him, and attack adds that bring up these quotes?
The thing is, I DO think for myself, and I like being able to think for myself. Going by his statements, Santorum clearly wants to create and support legislation that forces people to conform their lives to his belief systems.
Give me any of the other three guys and I will close my eyes and vote for them. I will NOT vote for Santorum if he is the Republican nominee for President.
If you want to lose the general election, vote for Santorum i
Report Post »thetreyman
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:07pmwhats crazier, a guy that believes in natural rights, hetero marriage, reproduction or state supremacy, anything goes and you will be forced to accept and subsidize it, and infanticide. thats right, remember that obama argued in favor of letting babies born alive in a botched abortion should be left in a closet, crying alone, to die. heaven forbid rick santorum is president.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:48pm@ moderatebeast you have with your examples only disproved your original assertion…care to try again after you first consider reading up on the writings of the founders, the sources from which those same founders gained their insight, the historical context of their frame of reference…your sites only support that Santorum is pretty right on the money as far as understanding founding principles go
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:35pm@KAYDEEBEAU
That is irrelevant. I’m saying that this country is not the way it was when the founders wrote the Constitution. A lot has changed, people are becoming less religious, especially the younger generation. If you give Santorum to the country in the general election, I predict he will lose. He will not get many of the non hardcore Christian voters.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 10:44pmMy apologies @ moderation – therein lies the problem – we have got to get back to our foundational God given roots or we do fail as a society. Our form of Gov‘t cannot survive without an understanding of where our rights come rfrom and where our power comes from and how limited the power of the fed gov’t really is.
Sadly, we have a whole generation who has no concept of wo we are, where we come from, how we got here and why.
We the People need to reclaim our sovereignty and that of the sovereinty of God Almight yfrom whence out life and liberty come
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 10:59pmAh MOD…….. that is the point you keep missing. You say “I could be wrong and there is a God”. You say “I do understand many or most of the Founders were Christian and have regard for what they built”. You say “I am open to new ways of viewing things”. But the best hope that Christians, like the Founders, see for this country is to return to the foundations that made us great. Why can’t you see that? You want an atheist society so much that it is impairing your vision. Do you really understand what that would look like? Think of a world without Christians. Better yet, read “1984”. Look at China. Look at Russia. If you weren’t born into this blessed inherited culture….such as it was in the 80′s…..your life would be a whole lot different. You continue to give no credit for the incredible culture you were born into. It wasn’t because of atheism that this country was great.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 11:22pmAnd MOD, why did you move on when you had a genius at your disposal? Are you afraid of what you could learn? You are set in your beliefs and not moderate at all.
BTW, you deem things “irrelevant” when your barriers come up and you dismiss a person’s point to which you are close-minded.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 2:23pm@COPATRIOTS
You were using the wrong arguments in the other article, which is why I left…….and you come here and use the same exactly wrong arguments. You completely gloss over the fact that I said I do see contributions from some of our founders being Christian, and the Christian influence on things that have happened in history. My point has always been……that doesn‘t mean Christianity is TRUE and that our founders didn’t want us run by Christian law. Mainly because……many Christians believe many different things about what the Bible says. I have always said that some of our founders were Christian, and even very devote in their belief, but look through the Constitution/Declaration of Independence and find the words Jesus Christ, please do it. There’s a REASON for that.
The foundation which made us great. You mean when black people were slaves, and women weren’t equal to men? Or when there were no nukes? Or when the internet didn’t exist? Or when we couldn’t fly planes? It seems like you were born in the wrong century my friend.
And why do you keep saying, “It wasn’t because of atheism that this country was great.” I NEVER said that. and why do you keep saying, “You want an atheist society so much that it is impairing your vision” I NEVER said that.
I explained on here why his argument was irrelevant, and which he apologized for misunderstanding me. I WISH you could do the same.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 2:32pmI am getting a feeling that you get your information from David Barton, who Glenn Beck had on his show a lot. If you do, please be objective and look him up and see some of the stuff he’s been caught doing. He is a “historian” who is definitely pushing for a Christian theocracy.
I hope you understand, that the more you people keep pushing these fringe candidates like Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum, the more likely you are to scare off people in the middle who will take them for religious zealots(which they are) who want to force their beliefs on others.
Your gang seems so intent on following me around questioning anything I say(even when it comes to me saying I disagree with both Maddow and Hannity, but they seem like nice people, and Billy questions it) that you don’t seem to bother and actually READ what I say.
You have this perception of me, then read what I write and create straw man after straw man saying, “You want this, You want that, You say this” etc that when I say your arguments are irrelevant, they REALLY are, because you aren’t reading what I am saying.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 4:57pmMOD, I’ll let KAYDEE clarify her apology if she returns to this thread. Sorry, I am not familiar with much of Barton’s material, have none of his books and been to his website maybe once. As to Jesus being mentioned in the founding writings, we have already discussed why the Federal government did not specify any religion which was to allow the States to have the authority. The Declaration speaks to “Creator” which was the way the term they used for God they could all agree on.
Where you continue to miss my point is a Christian candidate today is no different than a Christian candidate then. You can’t possibly believe that any viable Christian candidate would try to set up a theocracy. The same Bible that made the founders men of honorable character is the same as today. If you truly respected the men of that time and the good that Christianity in this country has advanced as you say you do, you would seek people of that background and character.
It was that very foundation that you just mocked that allowed us to abolish slavery, advance women’s rights and created the environment for untold inventions we enjoy. But you are wrong…..I was born at exactly the right time in history. :-)
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 5:10pmAs to your atheism claims, those are your words. I may have to start saving your posts. You said you would be glad if the country had no religion but acknowledged you didn‘t think you’d live long enough to see that happen…..among other similar things you’ve said. I‘m glad to hear that you don’t want an purely atheistic society. They don’t historically seem to fare well.
BTW, you continue to think I’m saying because the most of the founders were Christians that their faith makes Christianity TRUE. I am not and have not said or suggested that. I am saying that Christianity IS our roots regardless of whether YOU believe it is true.
Shaking the dust, MOD. All the best to you.
Report Post »sandrunner
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:01pmWar is nasty and dirty. It’s worst on women. Their health and hygene is compormised.
Report Post »plus
Do women, think the enemy will treat them like a lady?
Just in time
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:22pmNo, Sandrunner, they will rape them and then kill them
Report Post »robert
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:10pmJust in time
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:22pm
“No, Sandrunner, they will rape them and then kill them.”
And if there is anybody out there who doesn’t believe that….. or that more women will be raped and killed by their own troops in certain situations….. I‘ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell them.
Only liberals could ever imagine that women should take on male roles, because liberalism is a mental disorder which is totally out of touch with the real world.
Isn’t it curious that liberals studying primitive cultures where men and women have different roles frantically warn all who will listen not to upset the cultural norms, but when it comes to their own people they’re screaming “male chauvinist”, “bigot” and the like if no one will go along with a hare-brained idea that completely upsets our culture and creates dangerous situations?
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:59pmNot a Santorum fan but I somewhat see his point. Just not even sure how this subject came up. If it was a question from a audience member ok, but if he just brought it up he is a idiot.
Report Post »ares338
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:53pmIf they want equality….it needs to be total equality. If they want to serve send them out to fight and die with the guys.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:47pmAnd don’t forget the draft…They need to be registered alongside the boys.
They should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:37pm…
Report Post »Women should not be out on the front line of battle.
The women’s equal rights movement has hurt women as much as it has helped.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:59pm“The women’s equal rights movement has hurt women as much as it has helped.”
If those harms and benefits are happening on the terms of WOMEN, rather than others, then good–the point of equality among the rights of men and women is not a simplistic “let‘s do what’s best for women,” a presumptuous idea besides that is largely RESPONSIBLE for the NEED for such a movement. It’s a recognition that “women are as capable as men of deciding what’s in THEIR OWN best interests.” We have granted this recognition to men for centuries, and it’s time we internalized an identical perspective towards women.
Although, obviously, I would like the highest good for both men AND women, it’s FAR MORE IMPORTANT that representatives of those two groups have autonomy and responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and and a perspicacious understanding thereof, than that they “arrive at the right answer.” It’s their COMPREHENSION and OWNERSHIP of their choice, making it THEIR OWN, that I care about foremost–getting to the best consequences is something they are capable of sorting out over time, but without the former condition this process cannot even begin.
Report Post »robert
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:10pmLeadNotFollow
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:37pm
…
“Women should not be out on the front line of battle.
The women’s equal rights movement has hurt women as much as it has helped.”
It has indeed.I just read a couple of days ago where two female cops tried to subdue a single male suspect and both ended up at the emergency room. Another tried to physically restrain a male (about her size) telling him “You’re coming with me.” He hit her, knocked her cold, and she required 6 stitches on her cheekbone, according to the news account. The person in charge who sent these women out to subdue suspects should be fired.
The liberal mental cases just love to tell those who oppose obvious male roles for women as “feeling threatened” or that they can’t “deal with women as an equal,” when the fact of the matter is that these accusers exhibit some definite mental disorders in that they seem so desperate to want everyone to believe the opposite of reality.
As Orwell says about the Big Brother society in 1984: “In an age of universale deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
This will be known by historians as the “Age of Liars.”
But, have no fear. This empire is close to imploding now. Afterwards a new, better society will emerge from the ashes.
Anybody who doesn‘t recognize men and women as different with different roles isn’t playing with a full deck.
Report Post »lbouldin
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 8:15amWomen were given more than equal rights by the creator. All of you men out there, emasculated males are excluded, That means all liberals and most Republicans too. God commands you to protect women. There is no more room for discussion on the subject. All you males who aren’t men need to grow up. Women do not belong in combat period. God raises up rulers, we will get what he wants us to have or what we deserve. We can make the choice follow Him or not.
Report Post »Coach John
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:36pmEveryone wants equality for women … until one of them gets shot in the face in combat.
Libs — you can’t have it both ways. Either they can fight and nobody raises a stink when they die … or we treat them LIKE WOMEN and not put them in harms way and they come back alive.
Report Post »edmundburk
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:37pmAmen!!!
Report Post »momrules
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:34pmWomen can be fierce fighters but I have never thought they should serve in combat situations.
Santorum is correct too that men will automatically want to protect women, it is the nature of real men.
There are simply things that men are better off doing and combat is one of them.
Santorum had better get used to the twist and spin of his words now that he is making a showing in the polls.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:39pm“Santorum is correct too that men will automatically want to protect women, it is the nature of real men.”
Because real men don’t want to protect their comrades? Because they don’t suffer just as much, if not more so, when men they love are killed on the field of battle, beside them?
No. You must have more faith in the capacity of humans to do what is right, to do what must be done. Men and women have served in the armed forces for decades, and since combat does not always wait for you to engage you on your own terms, women have ALREADY fought alongside men in combat, as they were bound to end up doing as soon as they entered the armed forces. Our fighting forces face so many obstacles–I SERIOUSLY doubt that THIS, regardless of whether or not it is a real “problem,” is what would stop them, when they have claimed victory in the face of much more imposing, and obviously real, difficulties in the past, and present (and undoubtedly will do so in the future as well).
Report Post »momrules
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:03pmYes, it hurts the male combat soldier when his comrade is hurt or dying but men are conditioned by nature to be protective of women in a different way than they are of men, there is no changing that basic fact.
Report Post »I stand by my statement that there are roles better suited for men than women, combat is one of them.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:30pmI don’t see the difference. Men want to protect their comrades, and will give their life to do so, whether the comrades are men or women. And I don‘t imagine it’s any different for women.
I believe people are competent and capable of making decisions for themselves, and are not stupid or unaware, or incapable, of dealing with the consequences.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:55pmThird Archon-
Report Post »You know why there is no culture of Amazonian women? The society that sends their women off to die in battle will cease to be a society. Women a are the key to the future. It has nothing to do with their capability as many in the past have proven to be great warriors, it is more about why should they be put in that situation in the first place? The problem is most women do not want to be put into combat, eventually the few who do will ensure the ones who don’t will have to.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:53pmWhile I’m sure some women appreciate your concern, I think it preferable if that decision be left up to the individual. If a woman is capable of performing the combat duties of a man, and wishes to, then let her. There’s no reason letting MORE people who want to be in the military, and are capable of meeting its entrance requirements, somehow bring about the whole collapse of the system, at least no obvious one you’ve proven–all you’ve provided is the assertion that this WILL happen without explaining how or why. You take the LACK of matriarchal cultures (and it’s not a complete absence so much as a lack of KNOWLEDGE about these cultures which have, and do, exist) and/or martial castes to be indication that they are untenable. But arguing instances of something’s non-existence prove the NECESSITY of its non-existence is a fallacy, particularly when you yourself provide counter instances. I can think of a whole host of alternative possibilities why those matriarchal warrior castes might not exist.
But regardless, that analogy, even if you’d proven something from it, is not applicable to THIS case. Because we are NOT talking about REPLACING the existing system with a SOLELY, or even majority, female armed forces–what we ARE talking about is allowing those women who WANT to join the military, and pass the same fitness standards as men to be considered fit to perform certain duties, to be ALLOWED TO PERFORM THOSE DUTIES THE SAME AS ANY MAN WHO HAS THE EXACT SAME
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:54pmqualifications.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:30pmQuestion 1–Are you willing to die for your country?
Question 2–Are you physically capable, either now or of being conditioned, to carry/wear a 40-75lb. LBV for a day-long march?
Question 3–Are you physically capable, either now or of being conditioned, to pull a trigger?
If you answered “yes” to all those questions, you should be allowed to join the United States Armed Forces. Our country is the greatest that has ever existed, and will continue to be, only because and for so long as it continues to embrace what has made it so–strength in unity.
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:03pmAfter over 20 years of active duty service in the Army and a combat leader, this issue is MUCH more complex than your simple questions. Here is a dose of reality for you: The women in combat issue is a political agenda issue and has nothing to do with the readiness of our armed forces. In combat signal companies, we had 80 lb cable reels that at one time were labeled “2 Man Lift Required”. After much complaining by female soldierettes, the army decided the label was not only sexist, but needed to accommodate the the “elephant in the room that we cannot mention” which is the physical strength differences of men and women so the label was redesigned to read “4 Person Lift Required”. You may be thinking to yourself, “Why not just relabel the reels and shut your sexist mouth up”, but that would not be reality. The reality is the teams consist of only three “persons” and the only effective way to move the reel without stepping on each others feet would be to run a long axle through so all four could carry the reel, if you had the fourth person. So how does the army respond? They make the teams 4 person teams, the standard is changed to reflect the additional time it adds to loading and unloading reels (impacts combat readiness) and the cost is then billed to the taxpayer. And for what? Political correctness and expediency at the cost of combat readiness and cost to the taxpayer.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:17pmSome women are weaker than some men, but some men are also weaker than some women.
The military ALREADY has tests to determine if you are physically qualified to serve. If a man can pass the test, and so can a woman, and they are the same test, why should the woman be treated any different.
I agree we shouldn’t make special exceptions for women who can meet the physical (and other for that matter) requirements, any more than we should for men, and perhaps we should raise these requirements if it is creating problems that are serious enough to warrant concern. I’m also aware that this will have the effect of meaning fewer women can get into the military than men, and that is also acceptable given the nature of the military (there are very good reasons for its requirements). What is NOT acceptable, is to judge a man and a woman differently when they both ARE equally capable of performing their duties.
It is one thing to say that those (women included) that aren’t capable of performing the duties of the military ought not be permitted into it, and furthermore to note that this will mean it is harder for women to get into the army. Fine.
It is quite another to say that those who HAVE proven themselves equal in capacity, ought STILL be treated differently for no account other than different genitalia.
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:44pmMen that do not perform to the physical standard are put out of the military for lack of performance. In order to be a part of the military, you must meet the physical requirements of a man. If you are too soft, well then there is a job for you as a male hairdresser in the civilian world or anything that does not require male physical strength. As it is now as I have stated numerous times to you, female and male physical fitness tests are entirely different. Should transgendered males be able to compete for Miss America? Should women be able to play in the NFL if they are freakishly strong enough? Where the hell do you draw the line?
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:53pmEven the freakishly strong women that are an extremely rare exception should not be allowed to join combat forces due to the one thing that they cannot overcome and that is menstruating. Due to the constant flow, women cannot be assigned to any recon mission or any team that is close enough to enemy lines or behind them because the enemy employs tracking dogs. It is hard enough for us men to keep from being tracked but women tend to set off not just dogs, but other male wildlife that can compromise our recon observation posts that are dug into the earth and cammo’d.
Are we ready as a nation to put our women at risk of being raped if captured? That is a tactic that was used in Bosnia and WWII.
If we send in women, why not children that are strong for their age? They do it in Africa.
The main reason is that God made the sexes physically different for a reason and lately, it has been the crusade of idiots to prove God wrong.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:00pmJust more attempts to change the laws of nature and nature’s God.. won’t happen anymore than the laws of physics can be changed (hint – that is why they are laws) Whether those of us what to admit it or not – things in this life are only black and white – yes or no – we live in a binary woorl and all of our attempts to make it otherwise are futile illusions of ego
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:00pm“As it is now as I have stated numerous times to you, female and male physical fitness tests are entirely different.”
Report Post »And my point is they ought not be in some instances, the military being one of them. Some women can pass the tests a man can to be considered for combat duty–if they can do that, why shouldn’t they be allowed to perform combat duty if they desire to?
“Should transgendered males be able to compete for Miss America?”
I think so, but beauty pageants are of far less significance than the military, so ultimately I don’t care too much what rules they decide for their competitions, because there are far more important and consequential things to worry about.
“Should women be able to play in the NFL if they are freakishly strong enough?”
Again the same thing could be said of football–I don’t care. In principle, I believe that women who are physically capable of playing in the NFL and would like to, ought be able to. But I don’t care about the NFL for the large part, because it is inconsequential. And if football finds it more practicable to have a separate league for women, or no league at all, I’m not going to lose sleep over whatever decision they reach.
“Where the hell do you draw the line?”
Depends upon what we are talking about. Sometimes, we should have different standards for men and women for good reasons–the military is not one of those instances. Women and men should be evaluated according to the same standards, and held to the
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:08pmsame expectations.
“Even the freakishly strong women that are an extremely rare exception should not be allowed to join combat forces due to the one thing that they cannot overcome and that is menstruating. Due to the constant flow, women cannot be assigned to any recon mission or any team that is close enough to enemy lines or behind them because the enemy employs tracking dogs. It is hard enough for us men to keep from being tracked but women tend to set off not just dogs, but other male wildlife that can compromise our recon observation posts that are dug into the earth and cammo’d.”
Report Post »That’s something that must be judged on a case-by-case assignment. But menstruating in and of itself doesn’t make one unfit to serve in the military, or even perform combat duty, categorically.
“Are we ready as a nation to put our women at risk of being raped if captured? That is a tactic that was used in Bosnia and WWII.”
That is a risk women are not unaware of, and capable of judging whether or not the risk is worth it for themselves. Women, and war, are not the sole contexts of rape–they run a much greater risk of being raped in their lifetime simply by BEING a woman, whether or not they are in combat. They’re adults–let them think for themselves. An enemy vicious enough to rape captives is still just as vicious, regardless of whether or not they are given the opportunity to act upon their viciousness.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:09pm“If we send in women, why not children that are strong for their age? They do it in Africa.”
Report Post »I suspect you already know the answer to that, but one really good and obvious reason is that children by definition, unlike women, are not fully developed–they, be definition of being CHILDREN, do not posses the full physical, and more importantly mental, capacities of an adult human.
AxelPhantom
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 1:26amThethirdArchron,
Thank-you for trying to defend my sex, but you are wrong. I am one of those “freakishly” strong women as I can carry 80 lb bags of cement (at 40+yrs old) for setting pasture posts all day long, I keep up with my grown sons and husband just fine and I used to be far stronger when younger and in better shape.
However, working with animals has also taught me that they can smell a female in heat miles away, it doesn’t matter if the woman is human or animal. The more ill-tempered brood mares will charge you while you are menstruating and if you are up wind of the pasture, the stallions will sing. That is very compromising to any unit if once a month for about a week, two or more members are unable to go into the field (due to the dogs, horses, goats and other animals nearby… they aren’t deployed in NYC). There are other combat roles where woman can make a go of it, like fighter pilot where these things are less of an issue.
Report Post »Conservative New Yorker
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:29pmEver see the movie GI Jane?
Same concerns expressed by the Master Sgt about women in combat situations of how a man‘s instinct to protect a female may override his mission’s goal.
Opened my eyes to that dangerous potential.
Santorum didn‘t say women can’t do the work/job. Just the spin of the lefties out there and on this site.
Report Post »edmundburk
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:43pmGI Jane was feminist FANTASY!
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 10:21pmDemi Moore is 5′5″ and currently weights 90 lbs after she had her massive breast implants removed. Seal training requires the applicants to swim 50 meters. If her breast implants were not neutrally buoyant, she would either sink or be unable to submerge. Demi would need to run 4 miles in long pants and heavy boots in under 30 minutes. She would probably require a non-standard uniform. She would also need to complete a 14 mile run. That’s the distance from Santa Monica airport to Rodeo Drive.
Reviewing these requirements, Demi Moore could easily qualify as a Navy Seal as soon as she gets out of rehab.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:29pm”I think it‘s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern.”
Because they DON’T feel protective of their comrades? I’m sorry, what’s the danger here? That they might kill the enemy too fervently?
“Santorum also mentioned women’s physical strength in his original arguments on Thursday against their serving in increased roles on the front lines. His arguments, though, focused mainly on the lack of transportation assistance women could give, due to less strength, to injured men — something that didn‘t ignite critics’ interest as much as his “emotion” comments did.”
Report Post »Probably because his critics know he’s just flat wrong on this one. Yes, there is a difference in average strength, but the variance from the averages of men and women are almost completely coexistent–there are places where they don’t overlap at the extremes, but the majority of people exist in the middle ground, with women being so barely different in general (and some of them in particular, probably even more likely the case if they are interested in joining the armed forces, are actually stronger than average men) that this is not a significant consideration.
robert
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:54pmTHETHIRDURCHIN:
“………(and some of them in particular, probably even more likely the case if they are interested in joining the armed forces, are actually stronger than average men)”
Hahaha. Hilarious. You must know some really puny men you regard as average.
Among other business interests I have a marine construction company where we do docks, seawalls and boatlifts, but mostly boatlifts.
Sometimes it’s necessary to get temporary workers from the day labor service. In order to get a warm, income producing body on the payroll the labor service tries to flim flam employers that they’re going to……for example….. send three men and one woman and they disingenuously try to con us into believing that the woman they’re sending “can outwork 4 men.” She’s usually always fat, something like about 5′10″, 200 pounds.
Well, of course, she is about the size they claim, but I have never…and I mean never….had a single one that was even half as strong as my littlest guy (5′4″ and 135 pounds). Never. And I’ve never had one that had the stamina or ruggedness to continue through the work day as easily as the men. Never. And they never came back the next day for more of the same.
I can understand why some women who might feel inferior would want to tout themselves as more capable than they are, but it’s a mystery to me why men do that, unless they’re the limp wristed types who are frail and bacward.
Mental disorder?
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:08pmMy point isn’t that ALL women are capable of serving in the Armed Forces–there are many MEN who aren’t capable either, for physical reasons we are focusing on, or for other ones.
My point is that IF a woman IS capable of passing this standards, and many are (perhaps not as many as men, this is a meaningless fact for this case that bears no relevance to the particular women and men who DO fulfill the requirements), then their is no valid reason they aren’t equally capable of performing combat duty. Exactly how much strength do you think it takes to pull a trigger?
And it’s not like we LOSE all the men, by having MORE people (i.e. women) in the military. Men and women may be better-suited to certain things–fine, all the more reason it is beneficial to the military to be able to draw upon the talents of BOTH.
If they are as CAPABLE as a man, that is to say if she performed at least as well as any man who is judged fit for combat, in all relevant (from the military’s perspective) assessments, then there is no special reason, JUST BECAUSE OF HER SEX, why she shouldn’t be judged to be ALSO as equally fit for combat as the man who performs identically and IS judged to be fit for combat. That is my point–that we should have a special standard for women that is different from men when judging their fitness for combat duty. If they have the relevant capacities, being a woman doesn’t somehow disqualify them, that makes no sense.
Report Post »heedornot
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:15pmThis is such a staggeringly wrong statement that it leaves one wondering just how connected you are to reality in other aspects of your life.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:
The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.
An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.
Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:
- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median.
After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:
Report Post »- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.
- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60 vs 78% e
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:36pmAll that you have proven, if your data is reliable and the conclusions you’ve drawn from it valid, is that there will be fewer, perhaps far fewer, women admitted to the military than men, and thus far fewer in combat.
Fine–the military SHOULD have requirements for its own sake and the sake of potential applicants (some people AREN’T cut out for war–you are right).
That being said, if a person can pass those requirements, their gender OUGHT NOT be a reason that disqualifies them. They are adults, they can know (and probably are not unaware) of the risks–if they CAN qualify, then they are capable of making the risk-benefit analysis for themselves, no one else can do that for them. Regardless of whether or not a woman is more likely to be injured, if she can meet the requirements set for combat duty, then it is HER RISK TO MAKE on behalf of something she feels is important. All people risk injury, and death in the military–they should be allowed to make that risk which they have judged is worth making, if they can perform the duties the military requires of them.
Being a woman means nothing inherent in and of itself, any more than being a man means something inherently in and of itself. That‘s not to say there AREN’T difference, only to say that the difference are what we make of them.
Report Post »robert
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:01pmTHETHIRDARCION:
“My point is that IF a woman IS capable of passing this standards, and many are (perhaps not as many as men, this is a meaningless fact for this case that bears no relevance to the particular women and men who DO fulfill the requirements), then their is no valid reason they aren’t equally capable of performing combat duty. Exactly how much strength do you think it takes to pull a trigger?”
If you think all it takes being a soldier is pulling as trigger then I can tell you’ve NEVER been in the military.
There’s so much more involved, but it appears as if you’re totally in another realm and further explanation would be useless. I just don’t have enough space here to explain the differences in the performance between men and women.
And as for some men who couldn’t cut it, I’ve found there were very, very few men in the military who couldn’t do the work of ordinary infantrymen. The ones you refer to are basket cases who probably couldn’t get in the military any way.
I’ve never known of a woman who could perform all the duties of a combat infantryman on a daily basis, either because of a lack of strength or stamina. But even if you could come up with a freak now and then, entire army policy shouldn’t changed to accomodate the oddballs.
The bottom line is that women should not take on roles that men are far better suited for.
But, it’s a moot point anyway, because the policy will be reversed as soon as Obama is voted out.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:36pm“If you think all it takes being a soldier is pulling as trigger then I can tell you’ve NEVER been in the military.
There’s so much more involved, but it appears as if you’re totally in another realm and further explanation would be useless. I just don’t have enough space here to explain the differences in the performance between men and women.”
You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be–if a man is judged fit for all duties (or a set of duties) in the military based upon passing a certain set of physiological and psychological fitness criteria, then a WOMAN who performs IDENTICALLY to the same man on the same fitness test should be fit for all the same duties the man is judged fit for–I don’t understand how, if we’ve controlled for the relevant differences of sex in this fitness test, why you still feel gender is a relevant qualification.
“And as for some men who couldn’t cut it, I’ve found there were very, very few men in the military who couldn’t do the work of ordinary infantrymen. The ones you refer to are basket cases who probably couldn’t get in the military any way.”
Report Post »You misunderstand my point. My point is that it isn’t gender that determines entrance requirements, its fitness–and there ARE some men not fit to be in the army the same as women. Just as there are SOME women who are MORE FIT to be in the army than SOME men. I think you overestimate the difference in the ranges of men and women’s capacities.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 9:13pm“The bottom line is that women should not take on roles that men are far better suited for.”
Report Post »There ARE no roles for which women, as an inherent consequence following solely from their being a woman, are not equally suited to perform as a man who has identical capacities, the only relevant difference being their respective sexes, ceteris paribus.
robert
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 3:44pmTheThirdArchion
“–I don’t understand how, if we’ve controlled for the relevant differences of sex in this fitness test, why you still feel gender is a relevant qualification.”
Gender must always be considered in any equation in determining the effects of any situation that seeks to include men and women together.
In the final analysis this is not an intellectual determination and real life truths need to be factored into the equation.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:28pmI don’t believe that a man can defend mens issues, it will in fact take a woman like Ms. Allison Armstrong to defend mens issues because see understands men and womens approach to men and vice versa. In todays society a man cannot speak to anything regarding women unless thats to say they are in support of yet another program aimed at women. But if they speak up for mens issues then they are called women haters just like if he was to say I speak for all White males in America and I am concerned about their general treatment in a society that has treated them like second class citizens.
Report Post »Faith1029
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:23pmCHIEFGEORGE: “I don’t believe that a man can defend mens issues”
I agree with you and feel sorry for the men today. The feminists have taken over and are trying to make themselves tough and men more effeminate. For me, I would rather have a man defend me in war than a woman. I would rather have a male policemen at my door for a robbery than a woman. If I had a fire, I would want a male firefighter to put it out. And I would rather have a male president than a woman president going through menopause with her finger on the button. Men are just better at some things. They were created physically to protect people and their families. And God forbid if a man compliments a woman on anything or he’ll end up in court. It’s gotten totally pathetic. There are still some of us left who haven’t bought into this liberal stuff.
Report Post »rogerover12
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:24pmLiberal Dilemma
Yes Yes women on the front line!!! Equal like guys.
Pause. World War Breaks out. Draft enacted.
NO WAY!!!!! Not my daughter. I don’t want her close to any action.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:35pmWhat a sweeping generalization with absolutely nothing to support it. Wouldn’t most liberals be opposed to a draft at all, and probably many opposed to war in and of itself?
Regardless, I don’t want to talk about liberals right now, and what they want, I want to talk about what OUGHT to be the case.
And that is, if a woman is capable of all the requirements to gain entry to the Armed Forces, she should be allowed to risk her life, and die if necessary, for this country. This country is founded upon the principle of unity, it’s what makes us strong–the faith in the power and capacity of the individual to choose for themselves and the opportunity everyone has to make of their life what they will. Inasmuch as we have threatened the autonomy of individuals to claim honor in the manner fitting to them, we have weakened ourselves.
If I had a daughter who wanted to serve, it wold not be place to tell her not to. And if the cause was just, I would have nothing but pride in her life choice, whether it cost her her life or not–the choice is hers to make, as is the glory.
Report Post »RagingJudge
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:22pmI’ve spend a lot of time “studying abroad” and I think…
Oh woops.
Report Post »DD313
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:15pmThe spin seems to be that Santorum said women were emotionally unfit for combat. But he never said that; rather, he was clearly referring to the emotions of male service members in combat situations which might involve female service members as well. Stereotype or not, women will protect children and men will protect women. Whether this is a genetic trait towards preserving the species, or simply cultural behavior, I can’t say. In any event, it is something which bears consideration. Kudos to Rick for mentioning it.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:32pmAnd to that I say, thank God for the differences in men and women! I, for one, am disgusted with the push to a gender neutral society.
Report Post »BenKatz
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:14pmBarefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is where they belong right Rick?
The man is a moron.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:27pmThere is nothing wrong with women serving our country in the military. But there is no greater, noble, honorable job than being a mother raising children. There is not a more important job. My wife is good mother and runs a business from home. She is my Proverbs 31 women.
Support our troops! Support our Mothers too! they’re under attack!
We need strong family values in this country!
Report Post »BenKatz
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:41pmHow in god’s name are mothers under attack? Are you even reading the words you type?
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:48pm“But there is no greater, noble, honorable job than being a mother raising children.”
What high aspirations you’ve set for women. What I am curious is how you, someone who is not a woman, can know what is the best thing for ALL women to aspire to. Motherhood is not noble in and of its own right, for there are many who are not ready or do not want to be parents–and they shouldn’t be as long as either of these conditions persists. There is no morality inherent to being a parent, nor does being one make you a “better person” than someone who isn’t. That is patently ridiculous, and it is the logical implication of your assertion about morality.
There’s nothing WRONG with being a mother but what makes whatever a man or woman chooses just and worthwhile is that THEY CHOSE IT, and they have INTERNALIZED the value of what they chose. Women who devote themselves to motherhood BECAUSE they want to be mothers and value and esteem what they are doing, are both laudable and justified in their decision. People who are coerced into motherhood, by cultural expectation, by their husbands, or by lack of access to alternatives (because unlike a woman, a man NEVER gets pregnant when he doesn‘t want to be or doesn’t want/isn’t ready to be a parent), are NOT in an enviable position, and it is a tragedy, not praiseworthy, that they are mothers.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:26pmFathers are under attack. Mothers are under attack. Family is under attack. If you can’t see this then you must be living under a LOG. I pray peoples eye are open to the truth!
Report Post »AxelPhantom
Posted on February 11, 2012 at 2:04amBarefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
The very phrase is what is wrong with women in society today. That staying home, raising your own children and home cooked meals where mom is always there is somehow “worth-less” than a babysitter and daycare. What is wrong with you people?
Report Post »smartass
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:03pmSantorum should keep his mouth shut about things he knows nothing about. Of course, if that were the case, he would have to shutup all together.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:13pmHe tells the truth. Besides some rare situations, anyone who would put women in front-line combat is obviously a DumbAss!
Report Post »Blazer123
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:21pmindeed. We’re going to need lots of women for the front lines after he starts WWIII
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:30pmRight Rock! Because once 2.2 billion people are killed in this War, women will have no choice but to fight to protect themselves. But I digress.
Report Post »smartass
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:14pmWell obviously, you don’t know what you are talking about either. Find a reliable source about the changes being made and why. Read more that just the title and try to understand.
Report Post »resme
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 10:25pmBomb all brown people and make the earth uninhabitable.
Santorum/Newt 2040 Moon colony!!!!!!!!
Report Post »kfrederic
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:59pmI would like to have read WHO the critics were. I heard the speech and I would like to be able to cite the folks distorting beyond recognition what he actually said.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:19pmIt’s starting .. he is becoming a “threat” to both the Republican establishment (Romney supporters) and the Obama .. expect more of the twisting of anything he says … and it is going to get VERY NASTY!
OMG 2012!!!
Report Post »resme
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 10:26pmThreat? He is karl roves little pet.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
He defines establishment get real.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:59pmRick Santorum tells the truth. It’s obvious that women are made different than men and scientifically proven. There are some exceptions though, I’ve met some tough women.
Will we ever see women playing in the NFL?
Report Post »Blazer123
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:29pmgreat analogy because the qualifications to play in NFL are the same as those for the military
Report Post »BenKatz
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:38pmReally!? The best argument you can come up with is a woman‘s inability to compete in a men’s football game? Sigh.
Report Post »whosjohngalt004
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:57pmSeriously, Beck and Inc, a pop-up to NEWSMAX from opening an EMAIL?!! If you pull another crap like that I will be subscribing from all things Blaze. Can’t you guys make enough money from normal in-line ads without freaking POP-UPS?!! Do you really need to ABUSE your readers in this way?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:57pmWe are a Predator Species… and if a Female wants to Kill for whatever reason… then, welcome to the Front Line!
Report Post »Polarized America
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:02pmI’ve met a few “killer Females” and I’m all for um ;-)
Report Post »